Ankara, Turkey - 1989-91

In this episode, Jane asks her Dad, Iain about his time in Ankara working for GCHQ. His post was senior, he was responsible for staff at the British Embassy in Ankara, and also 100 staff at the Black Sea site at Sinop.

The posting was at a pivotal time for the Middle East, just ahead of the first Gulf War. Arguably, the start of the current wave of unrest in the region. A key responsibility for Iain was regular liaison with the General of the Turkish Army.

There’s a lengthy delay between this and our last podcast... due to technology and the lack of support for Dad to fathom Zoom during the pandemic. But we’re back now...

Transcript

Unknown: 0:19

Welcome to the spy who raised me podcast conversations between a daughter and her father. Yes, you've guessed it was a spy. Hi, I'm Jane Craigie, and I'm here with my dad in Craigie. And he spent his career as a spy. So it created much hilarity in the family and amongst our friends. And what we're going to talk about today is his time, his second posting in Turkey, when he was based in Ankara, between 1989 and 1991, just before the first Gulf War. So dad, tell us a little bit about why you were there. During that time. hygine You sound very awake and alert and ready to go. Yes, I was there. My my function was to coordinate and the embassy, the various transactions that we had with the Turkish Government. Basically, the general staff who were in and could replace just outside bankura and the monies that were paid by the British government on a three year basis. And an understanding that every three years, we reassessed, what was happening, we were using Turkish facilities and sonobe which is on the Black Sea coast. And the purpose of that was to keep track of the development within Russia of their military capacity of the missiles, ballistic and and conventional. So, that was the main that was the main reason for being there. I had staff in centre up around 100 staff who came on six month tours from Cheltenham from GHQ two man facility. My, my office was in the embassy and Ankara. So I had to orchestrate the admin side that covered the surveillance effort and sign up. And also I had to dovetail in with F and co with Ambassador and his his minions in the embassy that in actual fact that that wasn't that much of a chore because the FN CEO tended to keep their their work and, and the the conversation with Turkey to themselves. We did get some, some get some sort of idea of what they were feeling what they were thinking about the GHQ arrangement. So yeah, that was that was about it there for two years. And an amazing experience. Not only because Turkey was such an exciting place to be so many changes and such a vast country. And I think we look back on it and think wow, that was that was so so interesting. But yes, what did you think of tacky? Genie you were there? Yeah. Well, I am also going to ask you my next question links back to my knowledge of Turkey. So we were based there as a family in the early 1970s. So I was under the age of 10. And Emma, my younger sister was just a toddler really wasn't she and we spent nearly three years in Istanbul. So my memories of Turkey were just a vibrant, warm culture, a beautiful country, and lots of Freedom and, and lots of attention from from Turks because I was a young young girl with blond hair. And there weren't many blonde children in in Turkey at the time. So those are my memories really of, of Turkey. And they're very, very fond. And and I'm also perpetually intrigued about Turkey as a nation, its geography, its politics. Its, its its importance in that whole region of the Middle East. So yeah, it it absorbs a lot of my thinking time still, even though it was many, many years ago that we lived there. And that that's the advantage of having spent time in a country like Turkey, you know, you have, you have an understanding of what the country is all about. And even contemporary history and and the happenings in a country like that it's so interesting to be able to follow it but have some idea of of the country as a whole. Yeah, very much. So dad, and you were you were in Turkey, the your first posting, you're in your 30s. And your second posting. So what we're talking about now the anchor of posting 89 to 91, you're in your late 40s. And what differences can you remember from those two eras in in that country? Well, I think it has to be said, of course, the job that I was doing in the constellation. Istanbul was totally different to the one in Ankara, and just illustrated how much had changed in the world. During that period, Britain and Turkey, I mean, Turkey, we covered quite a lot of Turkey and different ways. We used to go to the Black Sea coast, we used to go you know, inland to various tourist estates. It gave us a fairly deep understanding of what the country was like, politics of the country. And the people. And I mean, you think that we all agree, was it a Turkish nation, Turkish people were very hospitable people, it were very natural people and all our travels through and then Turkey, illustrated that I don't think we will ever, in a situation where we felt threatened or where we felt that people were being an hospitable, they were just lovely, lovely people. And the difference between that period and mid 70s, through to at age 89, was was quite dramatic. And the politics were different. Of course, Ataturk was was the leader who, who started to resolve becoming a secular nation instead of an Islamist nation. And that that was a profound change for a country with so many customs and so many different ethnic minorities and so on. And I think, at that, at that time, in the mid 70s, it was quite, the political scene was quite relaxed. I mean, they had odd coup de Taz and so on where the military which was always very, very strong in Turkey used to try and take over the government, but But in general, it was, it was fairly relaxed, had problems with the Kurdistan with the current with the Kurdistan II thing where cards were trying to establish the homeland having been evicted from their homeland and east of Turkey, east of Turkey and north of Syria. So that that was evident throughout. And here's my other daughter, Emma with a cup of coffee. So, yeah, so that, that there was quite, there were quite profound changes. Not so much and the people have gone a bit more in the political system. And at towards the end of the 80s. The whole thing changed because our dorianne, who Reggie panduan became the became the president of Turkey and his his Tenure of Office. Initially when he was elected, was quite benign, he didn't choose to create too many difficulties. But that change quite rapidly. And he became, he became more strident and more aggressive. With the East with the Kurdish problem, he tried to, he tried to arrange things so that the cards could no longer look upon the east of Turkey and north of Syria, as being their homeland, which created a lot of terrorism. And it is now probably worse than ever, because he's now becoming quite aggressive and taking stances that that other powers do not like NATO For one, the Americans that are not so happy with what what he's doing. But But in essence, it's it's spread all over the Middle East, and there are so many points of both of conflict, that it's very difficult to see how they can reach some sort of peace and and progress. Yeah, and, and that that that time you were there from 89. And the Middle East was, you know, it's always been a challenging region, hasn't it, because of all of the religious differences. It's the, in terms of the rivers that flow into the region that they all flow through for the Tigris and the Euphrates flow through Turkey, and into Iran, Iraq and Syria. And it's also an area that's, that's full of oil. And so there are some very wealthy nations in the Middle East. And it makes it a very, very volatile region, doesn't it? How, how was that? how volatile? Was it back in 1989? And did you you're in a fairly senior one in a very senior role in your base in Turkey? How did it feel to be in that position? And how volatile was it? Yeah, no, I think I think that that's true. And I think, at that time, at 8990, I mean, there were things happening, but it was they weren't quite so obvious as as they are now. And I think that, especially in the embassy, we were kept informed of what was happening politically, just so that we could be aware of any changes. And there were so so many pressures on Turkey, I mean, Turkey is a, as a member of NATO. And I know that I know that the ambassador and Turkey during those times, was was tackifier, he was very much supporting the Turkish government and tertiary Turkish people, which must have led him into some conflict, because, you know, it was, it was it was difficult for him to, to feel that way. He spoke fluent Turkish. And the NATO situation, of course, with Turkey was always a huge convenience for Europe, because they were a buffer. They were a huge buffer, state of your life between the East and West. And to some extent, NATO, we're very, very aware of that. Because any of the conflict, I mean, even now with with immigrants pouring through from the east, into into Europe and so on. And the Turks were very much part of that, trying to solve problems, looking after the borders, and so on. And those that those battles are still still going on. I think it's difficult to see how the fact that Turkey applied for membership of the European Union some years ago, and have never been accepted. So that is a huge irritation for Turkey. And it's it's one of the The most important aspects of their relationships with Europe, the US and so on. Now, human rights is a very big factor. And I mean, it's been argued that over and over again that Turkish records in relation to human rights is not very good. But one wonders whether there will ever be a time when European Union will allow them entry into the, into the union, because, I mean, not so much politically, but certainly economically, that a very vibrant nation, that their industries are well developed, that infrastructure, due to quite a bit to address has spent huge amounts and in building roads and building infrastructure throughout the country, that it's, it's something that will happen probably gradually, but needs to happen more quickly, I think. And also to their lines of communication, of transport through Turkey is, is such a compelling reason for, for allowing them entry to the European Union. There's no railway line that links up Wuhan province in China, with, with European countries. And I mean, that's huge. That's absolutely huge. It goes through Turkey, which means that export of, of material goods and so on, is so much cheaper and takes less time. Compared with shipping, for example, the cost of transporting goods from China to to Europe is about half what it is using ships. So there are a lot of things that are going well for Turkey, but unfortunately, add the yarn is is quite obstructive and because of his Islamist views, not so much fact that Islam, but because it's it's non secular, so he's doing a lot of a lot of his decisions are made on the basis that, that it's an Islamic country. And doing that in this day. And age is is not an easy thing to reconcile. And back in 89 to 91, you're one of your key roles was to keep in regular contact and dialogue with the head of the Turkish army. Tell me a little bit about him. And also what kind of conversations you had with him and her regularly. Yes, that was the general stuff headquarters was outside. Ankara, is about 20 kilometres from Ankara. And we met up regularly with general he was Ziad Ron who's in charge of the of Iraq and the and the Turkish troops. And it was quite, it was quite an eye opener, because because it was quite a privilege to, to see to see inside by Iraq to see how, how they function to see to see how they treated their, their lower ranks and so on. And you could see just even paying one visit how tough the Turkish officers were, I mean, they stood no nonsense. They, they were almost the soldiers in particular, were almost in awe of officers, and they almost crawled in the hands and knees excepted. Standing to attention was necessary. Of course, when an officer appeared, they were just so under the thumb that it was unbelievable. But I mean, the General Staff, they were very you can imagine the furnishings it's very similar to what you imagine in in Russia, for example, old fashioned, very ornate furniture and they had huge conference rooms. So we used to turn up two or three of us had to have a regular discussion with the general. And also some of his staff. He didn't speak English and we spoke some Turkish but not good enough to cover. So we had, we had a translator. So we used to sit down and go through, there were some, there were certain topics that were, that were discussed every time these were mainly admin and so on. But the other more secret discussions were to do with set up and any end impact that that our efforts and send up a might have impacted on the local, local population and centre. And it was, it was fairly, fairly easy, and it was very sociable, and loads of capacity, but there were very few issues that were brought up, that were serious and couldn't be overcome. And we had such a good relationship with some of the other officers because they used to travel with us, if we visited set up sometimes one of the army officers would come with us and we had a we had a chauffeur driven car. So it finished up that we sat in the backseat of the, of the car and discussed all sorts of things and that probably was one of the the main reasons why I was privileged enough to really feel that I understood what the Turkish, what the Turkish nation was like and we would stop in villages. on the mountain, it was a very mountainous country and the journey from Ankara to send out was preserved at a very, very high mountain range through a village called customer noon. And we always stopped there and chatted to some of the locals and had a few chairs and they looked at us and we looked at them took a few photographs and then down to to send up to to see you know, to see my staff, but also some of the local people then sent out so, it was it was a great privilege and it was it was a very interesting time for for me and again, I think the family and the describe sign up to me. So you had 100 staff there Where is it? And what were those staff doing in that location and why was that location. So, important? Well set up set up was on the southern coast of the Black Sea it was in a province tree. So it had sea all around it. And the beauty of that site was that we could see across the Black Sea to what was happening in the Crimea and other other countries bordering the Black Sea which Russia had interests in. So, we had we had surveillance on the radar systems and also on on different types of of VHF and hf communications they have between themselves and and different countries where they had Russian troops. So, it was it was ideally suited for that and because the Turkish government allowed us to function there, I think there was some spin off in the in the sense that Turkey benefited from some of the intelligence that came out of that it was all the material that that was that was surveyed and sent out of course was sent back to jack Lemmon to NSA to be to be looked at to find out whether there was anything relevant to to the security of various countries. So yeah, so that was that was it was also dif different because set up. For the first time I think I I saw what American staff and troops were like, and I I was absolutely amazed. First time I went to meet my staff. And so now, one of the ports of call was the American base, which was only you could walk to the American base from, from the one that we had. So we used to get invited over there, they had a squash court there too, which was very, which is well used. But looking at some of the some of the Americans couldn't believe that they were all they were all hafting huge weights. That was the way they kept saying, I guess. And they were huge house really, really big people, big men, mainly some some, some women, but mainly men, and sort of threatening in a way this, you know, this is stored around and and they weren't that they weren't that friendly. So that that can you know, for me, I thought it might be an issue with some of my staff, because they mixed some extent. And sometimes they would invite the Americans over to, to the bar that they had that they ran there. But there was there. I don't think there were ever any real issues during my time there. So I think it worked quite well. At that time that so 89, it was the year before the first Gulf War started. So Desert Storm. Did you were you picking up intelligence, then that there was any increased activity in that geography, either from your work in Ankara? or from your work at sin up? I can't say the wars. I think that whole that whole period leading up to two that was was a surprise to a lot of people. I mean, there were so many decisions made, apparently so quickly. Possibly without collaboration, and when it actually did happen. I think the whole I don't do as was was surprising. And certainly the tax didn't show that there was any apart from the usual hostilities on the border with with the PKK. And so on the Workers Party and the ease. I can't say there was any signs that that it was going to happen. And what exactly can you remember exactly what did happen? What the sequence of events was that led led to the start of that Gulf War? Well, I mean, do you mean the committed the Kuwaiti the the attack by the Iraqis and on Kuwait? I mean, today, I'm saying, of course, was very unpopular ruler, and he had delusions of grandeur. I think it could be said. So he was he was like, all nations in that area, was highly interested in in Kuwait oil. And I think, I think that was one of the main factors, of course, with George Bush, and Tony Blair being being part of the part of the allies. Working together. It was it was a very strange the whole thing. And if you remember, can you remember the the people that used to go for weapons trying to check out what weapons of mass destruction when Iraq? I mean, that was we didn't we didn't get involved with that. But from the outside, that, you know, the whole thing looked plausible, and some a lot of information and intelligence that supported that and supported that. The Allies during that period came through gch Q and NSA. And I can remember having, having long conversations with other members of staff and various doing various work within the department, saying I wonder how, how accurate and how unbiased the information is being fed into government and and could be used to give a clear idea of what was happening and any country and of course, George Bush was was quite gung ho in the sense that even the way he walked, he always looked as if he had a six gun in his in his hand and Tony Blair, I think, although he was genuine and what he said about the intelligence he was basing his support of, of george bush. He was January and but we we used to say, Well, I mean, if if people within the department and within the intelligence agencies were politically biassed and didn't feel that they intelligence they were finding, and getting and sanding to sanding through to the powers that be like, like governments. We often wondered if that was biassed, depending on who, on who was producing the intelligence in the department and who is who is passing it through because we weren't sure whether there were any systems by which maybe unintentional bias would have would have conflated the the evidence of their being, say, weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. So it it was quite an education for us within the department where where intelligence was, was our objective, to find out after the, after the various crises, and in the Middle East, that perhaps the quality of the intelligence information wasn't as accurate as it should have been included. In that, that, that, that's really interesting. Because really, your, your role and part of your role, you know, you have to have deep integrity, but also objectivity and you. It always strikes me that, that intelligence is, is, is based on truth, you know, you have to know the truth, you have to know what's actually happening. So that must have been quite uncomfortable to feel that the the what you were receiving what you were the communications you were gathering, that some of that may not be accurate, that there may be a spin on that, to suit the politicians. Is that what you're saying? Yeah, that that's right. And I think, closer to the point of collection, if you're like there were quite often, depending on what the posting was in the country you were in and so on. It, it was obvious that it was easy to misconstrue what was happening in a country and I remember an N an Arab speaking country. round about that time. I spent a year there and, and looking at how information especially, especially the spoken word, was was processed by translators and so on. A and also the, the complexity of the language, I mean, the complexity of the language, say Arabic whether eight, eight cases of the verb, it's very difficult on an ongoing basis to make sure that you have the right, the right interpretation. And I think that was a vital factor perhaps in the Middle East. Analysts and translators were were listening to two conversations, and perhaps getting it wrong some of the time. Yeah, so it wasn't intentional. It was unintentional. No. Yes. It was unintentional. That's an important differentiator. Yes. And that that just another point on that. That is why now it's a sort of Crossroads because data that that collected satellites and fed through various intelligence agencies. I would think probably less likely To create false evidence, unless it was intentional on whoever whichever country was, was doing that to to you know, to, to lay the scene where there were untruths and so on just to to give it that I mean, that is a, you know, that is a real problem, I think with intelligence gathering, and now with cyber security and so, and you can see how many different ways that information is being collected and analyse by various, in various parts of the world and being analysed by people then central central positions like NSA, like GHQ, like, paying gap and at Australia, it must be very, very difficult to guarantee that the intelligence you have is correct. And how does that how does that sense check happen? Did you have people within your team or in in the Ministry of Defence that would then scrutinise that information that was coming in? And look at any anything that looked out of context or incorrect? Who who did that sense checking? Yeah, it depended on the nature of the intelligence. I mean, if it was data, it was probably done by computers and so on, and various algorithms, but but if it was a spoken word, then what all collection agencies did was to was to try and find people who spoke the language, who were probably natives of that particular area, like in Iraq, or like North Africa. And we had, we had a number of those who were totally fluent, and, and the language either Arabic or Turkish, or whatever it was, and understood the nuances that were apparent in you know, the spoken word so and that was a great source of, of reassurance for the intelligence agencies to know that the person who was translating that particular voice had been collected. You knew the colloquialisms and, and understood the dialect. And that was hugely, hugely important. Well, yeah, of course, of course. But it's not something unless you're responsible for those teams. It's not something that me as an everyday citizen considers as part of the job. But of course, it's absolutely vital. One wrong word, one, one incorrect connotation. could could be a significant problem. Yes, yeah, absolutely. I mean, this is why, over the last five years, 10 years, I suppose the quality of the intelligence, some extent, has improved, because, you know, have drones, you now have a series of satellites that can they can pick up visual proof of different things. drones that that can be, can be controlled, locally in places like Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, and so on. So that the information that's coming through is much more difficult for for would be targets to, to obscure or to, to devalue. That makes sense. It does make sense. Yeah. And it takes us neatly on to technology. So through your career, you've you've been you've worked with a whole range of different technologies, and we've covered them in other podcasts, but this posting 89 to 91. When we were chatting before we started recording, you were saying that you were using radar, you're using satellites. And one of the key things that you were doing was tracking missiles. So can you tell us a little bit about the technology you're using and what you were actually doing with that type of technology? What were you tracking and why? Yeah, I mean, you can actually And, and in Turkey and Istanbul, also in Agra, but but predominantly and sent up, there was a wide open VISTA that we could, we could collect information from a number of sources and collated and the sense that you could say, well, that confirms this. And this confirms that. And with with the missiles that were in use at the time, the ground missiles that were like the using now on Syria and other countries in the Middle East, also in Israel and Palestinian thing, those were probably easier to identify, because the satellites were in position could pick them up. Sometimes on infrared, and exhaust gases that were being produced, but also with the other missiles, the ones that were, were had a greater range. It was those were being picked up by by satellites, too. But it's it's not easy, because some of the up to date missiles, ballistic missiles, they're propelled into space. And they go at phenomenal speeds from phenomenal height. So it's them more difficult to pick up than conventional missiles. So that is a that is an ongoing concern with NSA with gch granola intelligence agencies, how they can decide whether their country is being attacked by by ballistic missiles. And, and it travelled a huge speed because of because of the fact there's no atmosphere and also they they're almost free flight from a huge altitude onto a target on a summer. So it says right, it's, it's really interesting and changing so rapidly. I mean, I find it difficult to, to find out information, of course, some of it is so it's so difficult to find, because technology is moving at such a pace. And that those missiles, those ballistic missiles, how accurate were they? Are they now when you were tracking them? In terms of in terms of the size? You know, the target sight? Yes, I mean, the short range missiles now, you can hear, you know, every week, there, there's an attack on, say, Syria by myself around two. And those shorter range missiles are easier to pick out. And when they're when they're activated. Because because they're closer for a start. They don't travel as quickly as ballistic sales. But they're very accurate. I mean, they can they can land on a, you know, on a tennis court. They're so accurate, which is why and some of the strife a lot of Australia and countries like Syria, because they have a shot and how Mashad and, and Russia are cooperating and, and, you know, strikes into the heart of villages and so on, but they're deadly accurate. And looking from your position now, so you've been retired for 20 plus years now, as you look at intelligence, you know, look from the sidelines, I say, I suppose you'd you describe it as now, the technology and both in terms of surveillance, but also in terms of warfare. What are your observations, dad? Well, I think that I mean, you can see where the emphasis is now. A with cybersecurity, I mean, it's such a big issue. It's just huge. I mean, when when factions, like Some of the terrorist factions like Al Qaeda and, and a shard, and in North Africa, when, when they start when the intelligence agencies start thinking that they have control over some of the some of the information that's being passed from one from one country or from one faction to another, it's a very, very difficult thing to do. And this is why all of a sudden, there's this huge increase and in the interest in, in cyber security, but also also in ways of counteracting that. And countries like China so far ahead, I think on on their, their infrastructure. I mean, it's sure now with with the Chinese Huawei fury was because, you know, the Allies thought that China could, could somehow control what was happening in certain networks, and some of those networks were vital. They might, they might be connected with control of nuclear weapons could be anything, and if their ways of, of, of being able to look at the data of other countries. And I'm giving you some control over over the software that they were using to control mishael, say or troops. And it's a really very difficult thing, but so inexpensive compared with the conventional ways of having, having satellite dishes and so on, and loads of people here and nice. What's happening. Fascinating. is frightening as well, isn't it? Yeah. It is it? Yeah, that's, that's an interesting subject. And it's one that that we all have to try and keep abreast of but what do you think, have you have you got views on on that and cybersecurity? Yeah, I have. I mean, I think it's a massive threat. Because technology and ways of communicating are increasing in two ways. One is in sophistication, things like encryption. And the other is volume, you know, how do intelligence officers key keep abreast of the volume? And also, the amazing technology developers who are out there making it easier to communicate? You know, the intelligence community needs to keep two steps ahead of all of that. Yeah. And that must take some doing? Oh, yes. How do you do it? I mean, you say it in a less and less tactical way, I guess, strategically, with Facebook and WhatsApp. And so and I mean, keeping a hold on the information that's passing from, from between subscribers is just a nightmare. I mean, it can it can change so quickly, and unless governments Get a grip of that, and, and start making sure that these vehicles are not be used for transfer of control of, of, you know, bodies like Al Qaeda. And so I don't know how they're going to do that, but they're going to, they're going to have to spend a lot of money. When it comes back to listening to you, Dad, you know, it comes back to people always it comes back to people in diplomacy, doesn't it? And, you know, talking about this, this posting that you had to Turkey, you know, that that that Alliance was was very strong. The partnership was very strong. And in a in a region that requires connection and understanding. Having Britain having such a strong ally back then in Turkey was really, really important. And it just, you know, that that also worries me that diplomacy is not seen as it doesn't feel like it's seen as important today than it was that you've you can have technology that will resolve everything, but actually people are at the heart of making relationships work or not, and understanding or not. What do you think? Yeah, I think that I think that It's true. And I think I've said this often to you that listening to comment on various troubled areas in the world, you hear you hear some people who obviously have no background in a particular country or organisation. And, and there's a lot of flannel and and misconceptions. But if you listen to some of the experienced people who were either part of organisations that interfaced with different countries, like, like, diplomats, I mean, some some of the comment Now, some of those x ambassadors and so on is so much on the button, I think, because they were there. And they've, they've, they've sat and spoken with opposite numbers, for years and years and years. And during that they get a feel for the situation that you can't do in any other way. And that certainly comes from Turkey, some of the highly efficient people, they had their like Ambassador light, like Well said, So Peter Wesner, God is one of the the, you know, outstanding commentators on different parts of the world, he was here as ambassador and, and Washington, of course, and you have to listen to people who have background to give understanding. And and I mean, it's no good listening to people who have half truths, and, and make up the bits that they don't know of it, because that's such a dangerous, saying, what is happening so frequently, that governments and officers sidetracked by comment is not accurate and is, is it's a really serious problem. And time in country or in region is really important, you can always tell when you meet people that have been immersed in a region, when they just, you know, as their understandings almost innate about the culture of that region, the behaviour, and you need to understand that depth of, you know, how people behave, and why they behave in a certain way to be able to operate effectively. And I think about your role in Ankara, you know, dealing with the general of the Turkish army, you'd already had one posting in Turkey. So you had a deep understanding of that nation, and what's important to the people and the cultural nuances of of the people, and also the different regions that you are based in? How important do you think given the serious seniority of your position in Turkey at that time? How important do you think that knowledge of Turkey, but not just turkey had been based in Saudi Arabia as well, of that region was? I think that, you know, I often say this when I'm discussion with people about various topics, politics, and so on, you have, the more background you have, the more contact you've had with people of different countries have different views and so on. The better equipped you are, to sit and listen and to discuss that and points and rich, balanced opinion, which 90% of time is accurate? And you can trust and you can say, Well, okay, I've spoken to people, I've watched them watch the body language, of course, x busters and, and people who have been in different countries that adapted that. I mean, they have, you know, there's certain look, and you can hear some of the analysis, or Yes, put in say, or do this is done this last 10 years, and you won't change he'll do that more often than not 90% of the time. They're bang on on the button. You know, they know that that's that sort of behaviour one can expect like in the Ukraine now where they're having huge convulsions in the west of Ukraine. And at that is invaluable. It doesn't matter how many machines how many, how many cyber security experts you have, at some stage. an assessment of the country will do how dangerous is I like you're saying is is so invaluable, so valuable to have personal experience of that people who have mixed who have spoken people who have negotiated with them. I mean, it's, it's probably the best way of assessing what's going to happen next. I'm going to ask you, this is my last, last sort of area of questioning for today, dad. But I'm also really interested in a part of my role in my day job is is working with and working in communities of journalists. And it always strikes me that journalists that are very focused on a region and have spent a lot of time in a region. They have almost the level of understanding that diplomats have, because they have spent so long talking to people understanding the culture, understanding the region, in in intelligence in your role, how much contact Did you have with journalists? And then my second question is, do you agree with me that journalists are important for their insight into people? And, and certain geographies? Yeah, I think I think I agree with that. Your last statement there. I didn't I mean, I've had contact with journalists a over a period of years, like Jane Howard, the, the BBC correspondent in Turkey. We did a lot of travelling with her in east of Turkey. Now she was a very shrewd lady. She, she, she was so interesting to travel with, we did one, one trip that was about a month long, and we travelled through all the east of Turkey, but she, she all the time presided over the local situation, and the difficulties and the the possible answers to some of the questions like in the PKK, region, east of Turkey. And you could see that she had such a deep knowledge of what was going on, which allowed her French he was reporting on areas like that, to give a real depth of understanding and realism for those particular areas. And I think some of the good journalists, you listen to them, some of the ones who know functioning in the Middle East, you just say, Wow, that is incredible. They have so much, so much information. And I think that because politics and economics and so on, and can obscure that facet of, of reporting, especially areas in the world that are under huge pressure, it must be that there are better ways of conveying their expertise and knowledge and to the wider and to the wider frame. And I think more often than not, now you get this very narrow, politically motivated points of view that say less than two journalists, really good journalists had been around and you know, like, like, Who should I say? Lee's dousset? She's one who, who has? I mean? Where'd she go? Is she does it time and time again, she gets right into the heart of what's happening in Syria. You got to listen to them and realise that they have they have up to date knowledge and they're not looking at political bias. They're just saying this is what we sell. And that do they final question? Do they play a part in intelligence gathering and informing your your peers about what's happening in a region? journalists? Yeah, you're talking about? Hey, I think there's very little of that because I think there's a certain amount of intelligence agencies. I mean, obviously, the job is to get as much information as possible, that is credible and useful in the sense of devising strategies. The trouble with this with that is that they're the media is so are so fond of, of themselves and have such have such definite biases for for various Political parties. So people? I mean, you've got to start looking at what the outlets are and say, Well, I do understand that. And I think that more often than not those reporters who are going to to foreign to foreign far, you know, like in the Middle East say, you can, you can rely on them, whereas people who are analysing what's being said, creating a bias, which is maybe unintentional, it means that, that looking at journalists for intelligence, input, you have to be very selective. That's really, really interesting that very, I've never asked you about that before. But that's a very, from somebody who, who was in a role where you were objective and seeking the truth. It's very interesting. Hearing that view. And I can completely understand it. There is there is unconscious bias that comes into journalism, for sure. That's good. Yeah, you're right. You've come across that because you're working with media and journalists all the time. And and Do you find that that you over the years, you've, you can have interviews, and so and you make a judgement, sometimes on the veracity of some of the information that you're being passed? And I think the longer you do that, the more adept you become, at making a decision and saying, well, I can't believe that. I can't believe that. Do you find that? Yeah, definitely. No, you do. And the unconscious bias comes from many, many, many reasons it arises, doesn't it? You know, your points of reference, your experience, your your knowledge, you know, it's it's not it really isn't intentional, good. Journalists will never intend to be biassed in their reporting. But sometimes it happens just because of the context from which they are debating, or reporting on a situation. And that's just human. That's just human nature, isn't it? And that's why diplomats are such an amazing breed of people. Because they maintain objectivity and reason, throughout, they're not trying to get a headline, they're not trying to, to make some make a story out of something that doesn't exist. It is purely objective. Yes. Yeah, I agree with that. Well, thank you very much, dad, we could talk about Turkey for for another four hours, I'm sure. It's such a fascinating country and region and the history of that area is, is just vast, isn't it on so many levels. But it's been really lovely talking to you about your time there. And, and just how, you know how that time fed into what is, you know, has become such a volatile region, and it's, you know, one country pops up as being troubled, then another, then another, you know, Iran, Iraq, Syria, it's constantly in the news, and it's just about time when you were in Ankara, 89 to 91 was really the start of the modern day conflict that we're seeing in that geography. So it's been so interesting hearing, hearing the roots of it. And we'll make a date for the next month, Howie? Yeah. Well, thank you, dad. And you'll be going off to roast dinner with my sister, Emma. What are you having this evening? I don't know. I don't know if we're having a rooster now you'd say barbecue season barbecue season. Yeah. And I do but project and with the allotment is producing a lot of Saturday's and, and tomatoes and things. It's great. So that's great. Well, that community project that's setting up the community. polytunnel has been such a big part of your COVID experience, hasn't it? What a positive thing to come out of COVID. Well, thank you very much, Jenny. And we'll talk soon. All right, dad. Well, thanks ever so much. And yeah, I'll chat to you soon. So we will record the next podcast we're going to do is on dad's time in Hong Kong, which was just before his posting to anchor in 88 and 89. So thank you very much, dad, and thank you to all of you out there who listened to Yes